In the major relief to Multiplex Cinemas, the Bombay High Court has declared the Government Order prohibiting collection of service charges/convenience fees on online ticket booking unconstitutional.
The bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain have observed that Suppose the customer feels it is convenient to book the tickets online by not going to the theatre and paying the convenience fees. In that case, the government cannot restrain PVR from collecting the convenience fees since for providing this facility of online booking, the theatre Owners/Petitioners have to invest in the technology.
The Petitioners, PVR is engaged in the business of operating and managing multiplex cinemas in India, including in the State of Maharashtra.
On 4 April 2013, the G.O. was issued, ordering that no exhibitor, owner, or agent should charge or recover any additional amount from viewers for online computerised ticket sales. The clause (d) of the G.O. reads as under at the time of selling the tickets in the Cinema theatres through an online computerized system, the Operator, Owner and also the Agent shall not charge any additional service charge. For this purpose, the Operator/Owner of the theatres shall not recover the amount due and payable to the appointed agency.
On 18 March 2014, another G.O. was issued, which stated that all the theatre conductors in the State should set up their own service/machinery for online ticket sale within a period of four weeks from the date of the order passed by the High Court in Public Interest Litigation. However, it was stated that, when making tickets available through this machinery, no additional service charges should be recovered from the viewers.
PVR contended that the department by the impugned G.O. seek to restrain the PVR from charging convenience fees on tickets booked online. It would be violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, since the government seek to regulate the consideration in the contract
between the private parties and impose unreasonable restrictions on the right to carry on a legitimate business, which is unconstitutional. Without a law, no restrictions can be imposed on legitimate business. There is no power conferred upon the goverment under the Maharashtra Entertainment Duty Act, 1923 (ED) to issue such G.O.s. Even the G.O.s do not specify the source of power for issuing such orders, nor can any such source of power be traced in the reply filed by the Respondents. Such an order could not have been issued even under Article 162 of the Constitution of India.
The court held that the impugned G.O. transgressed the fundamental rights under Article (19)(1)(g) granted to the Petitioners by prohibiting theatre owners and others from collecting the convenience fees from their customers. Absent a Statutory regulation which regulates the right to conduct the business of the Petitioner, the imposition of such a restraint would infringe the legitimate rights of theatre owners. The impugned prohibition is directly contrary to Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. If business owners are not permitted to determine the various facets of their business (in accordance with law), economic activity would come to a grinding halt. The choice of whether to book the ticket online or purchase it at the theatre is left to the customers.
Case Details
Case Title: PVR Limited Versus The State of Maharashtra Revenue and Forests Depar
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO.497 OF 2014
Date: 10 July 2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Naresh Thacker
Counsel For Respondent: Milind More, Addl. G.P.
Read More: Fake Tax Claims Can Backfire: Income Tax Dept. Launches Crackdown on Bogus Deductions
